City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: _07/12/10_ Item Number: J-1
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AGENDA ITEM: Review
and Discussion of Walker Parking Study and Directions to Staff on the Study.
Contact Person/Dept.: Christopher Evans,
Redevelopment; Todd Tipton,
Redevelopment
Phone Number: (310) 253-5744/5783
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date: _______________
Public Notification (USPS) All Downtown Businesses within the Commercial Downtown
Zone (06/28/10); (E-Mail) Meetings and Agendas – City Council (07/08/10); (E-Mail)
Meetings and Agendas – Redevelopment Agency (07/08/10); Chamber of Commerce
(07/06/10); Culver City School District (07/06/10); Downtown Residential Organization
(07/06/10); OliverMcMillan (07/06/10).
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (06/29/10)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (07/08/10)
Agency Counsel Approval:
Murray Kane (07/06/10)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball) (07/08/10)
City Manager/Executive Director Approval:
P. Lamont Ewell (07/08/10)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council and the Culver City Redevelopment Agency
Board (Agency Board) discuss and provide comments related to a parking study
(Study”) for Downtown Culver City prepared by Walker Parking Consultants (“Walker
Parking”).
BACKGROUND:
On February 17, 2009 the Agency Board approved an agreement with Walker
Parking to study parking resources in Downtown Culver City and provide
recommendations for improvement where needed. The scope of work for the Study
was developed with input from the Advisory Committee on Redevelopment (ACOR)
and the Downtown Business Association (DBA) to ensure the Study addressed their
concerns. The scope of work as designed included but was not limited to the
following:
• Identification of the downtown parking supply including, public parking
structures, City Hall parking, on- and off-street parking and public/private
parking lots; City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
• Review of the parking technology that could be utilized by the City to improve
parking operations;
• Preparation of a parking supply and demand analysis, including current and
future demand; and,
• Development of organizational and management changes that would facilitate
a more unified downtown parking system, to include on-street and off-street
parking planning, management and operations.
In mid June a draft of the Study was completed and placed on the City’s website. At
that time, a public meeting notice was mailed that informed the downtown
businesses, ACOR, and residents of the adjacent neighborhood that the draft Study
was available and that they were invited to a public meeting on June 29, 2010.
During the June 29
th
meeting Walker Parking provided an overview of the Study, and
the public had an opportunity to ask questions and provide comments. The meeting
was sparsely attended primarily by residents in the abutting residential
neighborhood. Comments received generally related to spill over parking in the
neighborhood.
On July 12, 2010, Walker Parking will provide an in depth presentation of their
findings to the City Council and Agency Board. Following public input and City
Council and Agency Board consideration of the Study, staff will work with Walker
Parking to make requested changes and return to the City Council and Agency
Board for adoption of the document and direction on implementation.
DISCUSSION:
Study Recommendations
In order to implement Walker Parking’s recommendations it is important to receive
City Council and Agency Board direction regarding those items that are more than
administrative in nature or result in a significant demand on resources. To assist
with the discussion, staff has identified those recommendations that require City
Council and Agency Board discussion:
1. Public Parking Structures Supply and Demand
A. Eliminate two hours free period at the Watseka and Cardiff Parking
Structures and replace with $1 per hour fee.
B. Eliminate two hours free period at the Ince Parking Structures and replace
with $.50 per hour fee.
C. Eliminate “additional two-hour free” parking with movie validation and
substitute with a maximum charge of $2.50. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
D. Increase the monthly employee parking rate at the Cardiff and Watseka
parking structures by $10.00.
2. Operation of the Public Parking Structures
A. Utilize pay-on-foot technology (POF) at the public parking structures.
B. Implement functional design changes at the public parking structures.
3. On-Street Parking Recommendations to Influence Parking Behavior
A. Enforce all parking meters until 11:00 PM.
B. Enforce metered parking on Sunday.
C. Eliminate time restrictions on metered parking spaces.
D. Gradually increase meter rates from $1.00 to $1.50 per hour.
F. Meter all on-street parking spaces.
4. On-Street Parking Enforcement to Maximize Parking Resources
A. Utilize parking enforcement citation tracking measures.
B. Utilize electronic ticket writer in parking enforcement.
C. Parking enforcement should work cooperatively with proposed Parking
Department.
D. Consider creation of a parking enforcement “Ambassador Program”.
5. Revenue Enhancement
Implement the parking rate recommendations and recommended rate
schedule contained in the Study for parking permits and citations in
residential permit areas. (See Residential Parking below). (Staff has
prepared a matrix comparing the cities identified in Appendix C of the Study
for the City Council’s and Agency Board’s reference – Please See Attachment
3)
6. City Hall Parking Structure
A. Install parking access control equipment at the entrance to City Hall,
parking structure level P-1 City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
B. Utilize a parking attendant pay-on-entry system if needed to regulate the
use of P-1.
7. Pooled Parking Program
Eliminate the current pooled parking program and replace with a monitored
system of parking credits.
8. Administration of the Parking Operation
Create a parking operations entity or department.
Residential Parking
Walker Parking considered the effect implementation of their recommendations
would have on parking in the residential areas adjacent to downtown. Walker
Parking acknowledges that if their recommended parking rate increases are
implemented, an increase in parking incursion into residential areas could occur. To
address the potential impact Walker Parking made the following recommendations,
which require City Council and Agency Board discussion:
• Implement permit parking in the residential area adjacent to downtown;
• Vigorously enforce the residential permit parking program when/if established;
• Create tiered fines for repeat residential parking offenders; and,
• Increase enforcement of downtown metered parking, ensuring that short-term
parking spaces are available and will aid in reducing residential parking
incursion.
Next Steps
Upon conclusion of the discussion, staff will make necessary revisions to the Study
and work to create a detailed implementation plan that will be presented to the City
Council and Agency Board at a future date.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
The Agency Board authorized contract amount for Walker Parking to complete the
Study and other scope of work items is $166,100.
City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Staff will identify potential cost and resource impacts associated with
recommendations in the Study as a component of the implementation plan, which
will be considered at a future Council and/or Agency meeting(s) as appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Notes from the June 29
th
community meeting.
2. Walker Parking Executive Summary matrix.
3. Matrix comparing parking rates of other cities.
MOTION:
That the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board:
1. Provide comments and input related to the draft Study; and,
2. Direct staff to prepare an Implementation Plan for consideration by the City
Council and Agency Board at a future meeting date.
OR
3. Direct staff and Walker Parking to revise the draft Study and return for further
consideration.
MEETING DATE: 07/12/10
AGENDA ITEM: Review and Discussion of Walker Parking Study and
Directions to Staff on the Study.
ATTACHMENTS
Item Description Pages
1. June 29, 2010 Community meeting
minutes 1 - 8
2. Walker Parking Executive Summary matrix 9 - 16
3. Parking rate comparison 17
Page 1
COMMUNITY MEETING June 29, 2010
WALKER PARKING STUDY PRESENTATION 7:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY MEETING MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER & ATTENDEES
The Public Meeting for the Walker Parking Study Presentation was called to order at
7:10 p.m.
A sign-in sheet was circulated for attendees at tonight’s meeting. Approximately eleven
(11) individuals attended the meeting, almost all of which were resident’s of Linwood
Howe’s Residential Neighborhood Association. Jessica Whaley and Ken Kaufman were
unable to attend on behalf of the Downtown Business Association (DBA).
George Plato was scheduled to attend but was unable to due to illness an informed City
staff that he would be submitting his comments on the report in writing in lieu of
attending in person. Doug Newton, Culver Hotel Manager was in attendance.
After a brief introduction by Christopher Evans, Project Manager Redevelopment
Agency, Steffen Turoff of Walker Parking, gave a PowerPoint presentation of the
Downtown Parking Study’s content, conclusions and recommendations. Upon
conclusion of the presentation, a question and answer session was conducted.
Q & A: Community Questions and Concerns:
Resident: Did the study include residential street parking?
Steffen Turoff: No.
Resident: Did you study the residential area adjacent to downtown at all?
Steffen Turoff: No.
Resident: Is there enough parking downtown to meet the needs of the
businesses?
Steffen Turoff: Yes, but people are parking in the most convenient spaces, which
results in nearby parking structures being used to their capacity,
and other areas are not being used.
Resident: Did you study how to get the street parking off Van Buren?
Steffen Turoff: No, but the downtown parking is currently sufficient in amount to
meet needs.
Resident: But that parking isn’t free, so they park in our neighborhoods.
Resident: I think Brotman visitors are parking at “The Bank of the West” and
“Chase Bank”.
ATTACHMENT 1
1
Page 2
Resident: Can you put parking meters on Irving to deter people from parking
there since it is free and convenient?
Steffen Turoff: We recommended all commercial areas that don’t currently have
meters to be metered and to increase the frequency of patrols to
prevent abuse.
Resident: Can you install meters on Lafayette, Irving and Van Buren?
Steffen Turoff: I don’t think it is wise to push everyone into their garages in the
residential areas.
Resident: How do we prevent street parking from filling up in residential
areas?
Steffen Turoff: Establish a permit parking program or downtown parking will
always spill over. It won’t stop until then. If the residential street
parking is still full after that, then, increase the parking permit fees
that the residents pay to encourage them to park in their garages
and driveways.
Resident: Even with permit parking on my street, it isn’t being enforced. I see
abuses occurring.
Steffen Turoff: The permit parking system only works if the City enforces it by
issuing citations. Otherwise, motorists learn quickly that they will
not be cited and take advantage of this knowledge.
Resident: Those who work downtown often park on Lafayette Place because
parking in the structures cost too much for the employees. How are
you going to address this issue?
Steffen Turoff: Any available free parking will always be used first when demand
for parking is high or if employees don’t want to pay for monthly
parking.
Resident: It cost $15 to obtain a parking permit. In a household with three
drivers, that’s a lot of money!
Resident: Explain ways how valet or a validation program could help
encourage people to not park in residential neighborhoods due to
the convenience it provides.
“Christopher Evans: The City has received a grant to implement real-time monitoring
system in downtown in which motorists will be informed by electronic signs how many
parking spaces remain in each of the downtown parking structures. The signs will be
placed in several areas around and leading to downtown.”
Resident: What about the use of validations by the businesses?
ATTACHMENT 1
2
Page 3
Steffen Turoff: What draws customers to an area is the destination itself, not
validations. As long as there is parking available at a reasonable
price, you will have customers. The price is not the biggest
concern or even parking convenience. The most important thing is
the availability of parking.
Resident: It is difficult to get a majority on our block to sign a petition to obtain
permit parking. Can’t the City help make it easier by taking the lead
to make determinations on a block-by-block basis without us having
to ask for it?
“Gabe Garcia: We did do this for Lynwood Howe neighborhood and established a
district already. All residents need to do is obtain signatures on a block-by-block basis
for its implementation since it is already approved.”
Resident: But that is hard to do! Some are opposed to the idea -- there needs
to be an easier way. Why do we need 100% signatures?
“Gabe Garcia: We only require 75% approval of the residents on any given block.
Currently, and we are studying how other cities are administering their system in order
to determine if we should change our 75% threshold policy.”
Resident: We gathered 65% petition signatures at one time and that wasn’t
enough! The threshold should be reduced. Also, why are we
required to have 66% of us to buy permits too? If they don’t buy
the permits, then the program discontinues. Why?
“Gabe Garcia: Sometimes neighbors sign because they feel pressured to, but didn’t
really want to participate in it after all. This is made evident in the fact that they don’t
subsequently buy a permit.”
Resident: The Study recommends the first permit be priced at $0, the second
$35. That’s not right. Steffen Turoff: The cost is only a minor
detail in the grand scheme of things and the City Council can set
the rates as they see fit, just so long as it is implemented and
enforced.
Steffen Turoff: We counted cars, not people and why they are parking where they
do. Instead, we focused our efforts on where and how long they
park during specific times of the day.
ATTACHMENT 1
3
Page 4
Resident: My apartment building is on Watseka and our building is built in
1927. We were supposed to be allowed to park in the Watseka
surface parking lot, but now we aren’t allowed to do so when they
built the Watseka structure. Please consider permit parking on
Watseka for its residents, and not just parking meters for its
commercial uses.
Resident: Are you going to change the residential permit rates?
“Gabe Garcia: We’re open to discussing and studying our existing rates and how they
compare to other cities.”
Resident: How about installing more signage in the area to encourage good
parking practices?
“Gabe Garcia: We’re considering expanding and reducing districts throughout the city
to give us the flexibility we need. We have to consider people parking on immediately
adjacent blocks as a way of working around parking restrictions on any given block.
That is why districts are formed – because we know any parking program implemented
will be impact the entire district.”
Resident: We should increase signage as a deterrent to abuse.
Resident: I live on Van Buren and it is a nightmare having to find a space to
park in. The sign says don’t park in this residential neighborhood
already and it doesn’t help at all. We get a lot of restaurant
customers parking on Van Buren. We need to find a way to stop
this. I also observe them driving the wrong way on a one-way
street!
“Gabe Garcia: The City Council adopted 1 hour parking from Mon-Fri during the day in
Linwood Howe already. Resident: But people are abusing the system! We also get
theater parkers too. We need more canvassing and enforcement. Gabe: Contact me
separately and talk to your city councilmember to help out.”
Resident: I wanted to let you know that true or not, we residents are
convinced that the city has a silent policy of not enforcing parking in
the area. It may not be true, but I wanted to let you know what the
residents are saying.
ATTACHMENT 1
4
Page 5
[Staff note: According to PD, an average of 125 citations are issued per month to
motorists in the Lynwood Howe parking district area.]
Resident: Is it legal to feed a 1-hour meter over and over for several hours?
“Gabe Garcia: Yes, it is legal to feed the meter passed one hour as often as you
choose to.”
Resident: Employees downtown are taking up all the metered spaces and are
feeding them throughout the day and that needs to stop and be
made illegal, since it isn’t right. Those parking spaces should be for
customers so they don’t park in our residential neighborhood.
Steffen Turoff: Walker Parking recommends that meters not be allowed to be fed
beyond their initial time period allowance however, this is very
difficult to enforce. As an alternative, we recommend increasing
the hourly rates in a progressive manner to discourage abuse. For
example, though the first hour may be only $1. The second could
be $2, the third $4 and the fifth $5. This is a self-policing way of
discouraging employees from parking in the metered areas.
Resident: I live on Irving and people are blocking my driveway leading to our
apartment building. I don’t care about signage, I would rather they
don’t block our driveways. I have to call the Police in order to get
out of my house! Sometimes it takes an hour for the Police Dept. to
show up so I’m late in getting where I need to be.
Resident: Let’s install cameras throughout the neighborhood and increase
citation fees significantly in order to deter abuse. The City could
make a lot of money on enforcement that way.
Resident: Won’t increasing monthly parking rates, especially eliminating the
two-hour free parking encourage customers to park in our
residential neighborhood!
Steffen Turoff: To discourage this, I recommend implementation of a permit
parking only system coupled with enforcement to avoid this from
occurring in the future.
Resident: Why do the residents have to pay for their own permits on their own
street! That’s not right. We’re being penalized for living next to a
successful downtown.
Steffen Turoff: Any permit fee is established by the City Council and are thus a
policy decision.
ATTACHMENT 1
5
Page 6
Steffen Turoff: Living next to a successful downtown area is a going to be a trade
off.
Resident: Yes, it is lovely to live next to a successful downtown, but Santa
Maria BBQ stinks when it cooks and my visitors don’t like to smell it
either.
Resident: Parents of the students pick up and drop off their kids and also use
a lot of neigh hood parking when they visit. Did you study that?
Steffen Turoff: No, only the commercial areas.
Resident: Why not create resident only parking on weekends in our
neighborhood?
“Gabe Garcia: Currently, policy dictates that a threshold of 25% of parking on any
given street has to be non-residents in order for it to be considered a problem.”
Resident: Doesn’t the City Council look to staff to obtain recommendations?
“Gabe Garcia: Staff outlines options to the City Council so they may make educated
decisions. We do analyze those options as well.”
Resident: On page 63, table 20 it says the City will make $1.3M more if they
give up 2-hour free parking. Page 60 says that the salary for each
ticket writer is $32K without benefits. How much does it cost
really? Another staff report written previously indicated that it cost
$69,500. Vehicle maintenance is another $10K annually. How are
we to fund parking enforcement officers with all our current budget
woes right now? We just laid off 60 city staffers!
Steffen Turoff: The simple answer is that citation writing makes the city money
regardless of how much their salary costs. It can be a source of
income for the city.
“Christopher Evans: Why is that?”
Steffen Turoff: Because there are so many violations out there to cite. We all
know that enforcement is weak right now, but if hired, it will pay for
itself, so keep that in mind.
Resident: Won’t Parcel B’s development impact the parking supply?
ATTACHMENT 1
6
Page 7
Steffen Turoff: On a conservative basis, even at the peak period we still have at
least 600 spaces that are available and it will take a lot of new
development to make a dent in that ample surplus. Yes, down the
line we may run out of parking as development resumes, but not
within the next five years.
Resident: So the Study concludes that we can use these 600 for future
development parking needs?
Steffen Turoff: Yes, it the Study is a guideline for future development that intends
to share in the pooled parking program. For larger development
however, they should be building their own parking and not relying
upon the pooled parking program to meet their needs.
Resident: Who owns Parcel B?
“Sol Blumenfeld: The Agency.”
Resident: Why does it sit empty all the time?
“Sol Blumenfeld: It’s a potential redevelopment site that is leased for Studio and Hotel
parking needs right now. We will make some decisions soon for Parcel B’s short and
long term uses. If we don’t develop it within the next five years, one option is to use it
as a parking lot that is open for general public use.”
Resident: Shouldn’t the businesses be responsible for telling their customers
where to park and that it is free for the first two hours to discourage
parking in residential areas?
“Christopher Evans: Currently, Pacific Theaters has 4 hours free parking with
validation.”
Resident: Yes, but do they tell their customers prior to their arrival to see the
movie of this?
Resident: How come Topson Downs is parking on Irving if there are so many
pooled parking spaces available? This company has 140
employees.
“Joe Susca: Though Watseka and Cardiff do not have any employee parking available
for their use, we did offer them use of Ince. Instead of accepting staff’s offer however,
they decided to rent their spaces on Irving, which was closer to them.”
ATTACHMENT 1
7
Page 8
Resident: I’ve observed motorists parking in the loading zone for six months
in a row without being cited.
“Sol Blumenfeld: I think we can all agree that enforcement needs to be stepped up.”
******
CONCLUSION: - (Additional Comments Submitted By George Plato)
1. Against eliminating the 2-hour free parking in the structures.
2. Concerned about meter feeding and interested in policies that reduce or
eliminate the practice.
3. Suggested that employee permits for Cardiff be reduced or eliminated in order to
move employees to less busy structures.
Adjournment
There being no further discussions, at 8:55 p.m. on Tuesday, June 29, 2010, the Public
Meeting for the Walker Parking Study was concluded.
MEETING RECORDER:
Joe Susca,
Project Manager, Redevelopment Agency
APPROVED:
Christopher Evans,
Project Manager, Redevelopment Agency
ATTACHMENT 1
8Downtown culver City
COMPREHENSIVE PARKING STUDY – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
37-8096.00
ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over the past decade Downtown Culver City has experienced a significant increase in
popularity as a dining and entertainment destination. As a result, the City has
experienced a significant increase in the demand for parking by visitors and employees.
At the request of the Culver City Redevelopment Agency (RDA), Walker Parking
Consultants conducted a comprehensive analysis of the Downtown parking system in
order to gauge its ability to manage current and future demand for parking in the area.
Our analysis revealed that a significant number of the existing 2,768 parking spaces
located within the Downtown|1010| are underutilized during peak demand periods on both
weekdays and weekends. Parking conditions primarily in the Cardiff Parking Structure
and on the street tend to obscure the fact that hundreds of parking spaces remain
empty in Downtown, even when occupancy rates in the aforementioned locations
approach peak capacity.
To the extent that visitors and employees encounter a lack of parking, our findings
indicate this is due primarily to inconsistencies between pricing and policies among
different parking facilities; the most sought after parking spaces are often priced at the
same rate (or less) than spaces that are less convenient. The result is that visitors,
employees, transient and monthly parkers all tend to compete for the most convenient
and least expensive spaces, creating localized parking impacts and perceived parking
shortages, while other spaces in the area remain unoccupied.
Our analysis also suggests that an active and comprehensive approach to managing
the entire system, from on-street to off-street, enforcement to validation programs,
would increase both the efficiency of the system and revenue generation. Just as the
pricing and policies for each space and parking facility must be looked at in terms of the
parking system as a whole, the different management policies of the system must be
viewed comprehensively as well.
In order to achieve the goals of the study, which are ultimately to make parking more
convenient and accessible for the public in an efficient and cost effective manner, we
recommend the implementation of adjustments in pricing and changes in parking
management policies, including the City’s and RDA’s internal management of its
parking resources.|1010| We make our recommendations with the following goals in mind:
|1010| Downtown defined herein is the area coterminous with “CD Zoning District” in the City’s Zoning Ordinance and
General Plan and shown in Figure 1 in the report. It is synonymous with CD, Commercial Downtown District, and
Study Area. |1010| Throughout this report we will discuss the “parking system,” which contains assets owned by the RDA (such as the
Ince and Watseka Parking Structures) and the City (such as on-street parking spaces). To the extent possible we try
to distinguish between these two entities within our discussion. However, at times we discuss issues that relate to
the entire system and therefore both the RDA and the City. In these instances, for the purposes of this report, we use
the term “City” to refer to both the RDA and City.
ATTACHMENT 2
9Downtown culver City
COMPREHENSIVE PARKING STUDY – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
37-8096.00
ES-2
• Enhanced customer service and convenience;
• Turnover and space availability;
• Revenue generation;
• Ease of Implementation;
• Maximization of resources and efficiencies.
We explored increased parking fees for the purposes of improving efficiency, increasing
space availability, and generating additional revenue. We found that adjusting the
existing parking fee structure would result in significant additional revenue for the City
and the RDA. However, we note that while the added revenue is substantial, in many
cases it is secondary to the funds that can be saved by using pricing cues to manage
the existing supply of spaces thereby saving land, construction and opportunity costs
associated with constructing new parking facilities.
Finally, we note the effects of mispricing parking go beyond efficiency, cost and access
issues and that these effects must be considered in light of broader planning goals.
Among them, mispricing parking can contribute significantly to traffic congestion, both
localized and in the larger area, as well as discourage the use of alternative forms of
transportation, most notably by employees who can park inexpensively in Downtown.
The following summarizes our recommendations from each section of the study as
presented in the scope of services:
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURES SUPPLY AND DEMAND - CARDIFF, WATSEKA
AND INCE
Immediate:
A. Replace the existing policy of offering two hours of free parking in the
Cardiff and Watseka Parking Structures with a $1.00 per hour fee.
Implementing an hourly rate should improve space availability for
customers and visitors, by redistributing long-term parkers to other
locations. This policy would also enhance management (including the
elimination of parkers moving their cars every two hours to gain longer
periods of free parking), and increase revenue. Although it would generate
less revenue, a policy that may be more agreeable to some stakeholders
would be to charge $1.00 for the first two or three hours of parking. At a
minimum, we strongly recommend that the free period be eliminated or at
least significantly reduced.
B. Replace the free period in the Ince Parking Structure with a $0.50 per hour
fee for the same reasons as those provided above. We note that, given its
current low occupancy rates, the Ince Structure should be priced lower
than the Cardiff and Watseka Structures. Charging a flat $0.50 or $1.00
ATTACHMENT 2
10Downtown culver City
COMPREHENSIVE PARKING STUDY – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
37-8096.00
ES-3
fee for the first two or three hours of parking would reduce the revenue
generating potential of our recommendation. As with the Cardiff and
Watseka Structures, we strongly recommend that the free period be
significantly reduced.
C. Eliminate the “additional two-hour free” validation and substitute with the
$2.50 maximum charge per the terms of the RDA’s agreement with
OliverMcMillan.|1010|
D. Increase the fee for monthly contract parking by $10.00 per permit in the
Cardiff and Watseka Structures to encourage long-term parkers to park in
locations that are currently underutilized. This action would effectively
reduce long-term demand in the busier Cardiff and Watseka Structures,
provide additional spaces for visitor parking in these same structures, and
generate additional revenue.
E. Obtain the “reasonable approval” of the Developer and theater operator
for any parking rate increases per the RDA’s Disposition and Development
Agreement with OliverMcMillan (“DDA”).
Short term:
F. Monitor parking occupancy in each of the structures on a frequent and
regular basis (bimonthly at a minimum), to determine whether the parking
fee structure for transient and monthly parking is having the desired policy
results or requires adjustment.
G. Use our pricing recommendations to set a goal of no more than 90%
occupancy in the spaces available for public parking in each of the parking
structures for a typical peak day.
2. OPERATION OF THE PUBLIC PARKING STRUCTURES
Immediate:
A. Actively work with the Pacific 12 Theaters in order to:
- Ensure that only eligible patrons are allowed to validate their parking
tickets in order to protect the revenue integrity of the system; the
location of the movie theatre “clamshell” validating machines creates
significant challenges for properly managing the validations;
- Monitor the number of movie validations provided on an hourly and
daily basis to enhance management of the parking system.
|1010| Per the RDA’s agreement, it is no longer under obligation to offer an additional “two-hours free” with validation to
movie patrons.
ATTACHMENT 2
11Downtown culver City
COMPREHENSIVE PARKING STUDY – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
37-8096.00
ES-4
B. Standardize the validation system for film production and event parking in
order to increase oversight and monitor and protect revenue. Validations
should be tracked.
C. Eliminate the sticker validation program to simplify parking operations. If
the RDA chooses to continue the program, we recommend replacing the
current system with alternatives ranging from validators and “follow-up”
tickets to scanned on-line validations, which can be employed to better
track and streamline the program and associated revenue issues.
D. Enforce the policy that requires the Brotman Hospital employees to utilize
Watseka’s nested area by ensuring that the equipment’s “anti-passback”
features are in use in order to increase the availability of parking for the
general public the Watseka Structure.
Short term:
E. Implement access control for the parking structures that uses pay-on-foot
technology (POF) in each of the parking structures to address the
following:
- Enhanced throughput (faster exiting of vehicles) resulting in shorter
queues for patrons;
- Improved operating conditions afforded through the ability to operate
24 hours daily with minimal staffing;
- Improved revenue security;
- Promotion of better air quality resulting from less vehicle queuing;
- Enhanced customer service.
F. Given the age of the equipment in the two oldest structures and the
existing challenges in queuing experienced particularly in the Cardiff
Structure, implement POF in the Cardiff and Watseka Structures in the
near term and in the Ince Structure in the long term.
G. In the Watseka Structure, install an LED dynamic message to specifically
instruct the public when nested spaces are available. Control message
from the parking office, or automatically schedule with the raising of the
gate arms, so that the sign need not be manually changed.
Long term:
H. Implement a series of functional design improvements, particularly at the
exits, in order to increase the speed of exiting procedures and reduce
queues.
3. RDA PARKING OBLIGATIONS PER OLIVERMCMILLAN DDA
Immediate:
ATTACHMENT 2
12Downtown culver City
COMPREHENSIVE PARKING STUDY – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
37-8096.00
ES-5
A. Create an employee parking strategy per the terms of the DDA using the
recommendations regarding the management of employee parking
contained in this report.
B. Require that the Ince structure adjacent to 60 “30-minute” parking spaces
for Trader Joe’s and be open on weekends from 7:00 AM but establish
with OliverMcMillan that the current 45-minute designated time limit and
8:00 AM opening hour is sufficient for the operation at this time.
C. Note that the RDA is in compliance with the provision to provide at least
1,922 parking spaces within the designated perimeter of the development
area.
4. ON-STREET PARKING
Immediate:
A. Extend the hours of operation and enforcement of all parking meters until
11:00 PM to encourage turnover at curbside spaces and increase visitors’
access to convenient parking in the evenings. This policy is particularly
important to implement on Thursday through Sunday evenings given the
high occupancy observed at metered spaces on those days. The
generation of revenue is an important, but secondary, goal of this policy.
B. Enforce parking meters all day on Sunday to encourage turnover and
increase visitors’ access to convenient parking spaces. The high on-street
occupancy observed in the metered spaces throughout the day on Sunday
indicates that this action would enhance short-term availability throughout
the day and discourage spillover parking in the neighborhood.
Short term:
C. Eliminate time restrictions on metered spaces but encourage turnover
using a system of higher and/or tiered rates that discourage, but do not
specifically prohibit parking on the street for longer than two hours to
enhance flexibility, convenience and the overall experience for visitors.
This recommendation would also facilitate parking enforcement although
reduce potential revenue from citations.
D. As part of the previous recommendation, gradually increase parking meter
rates from the current $1.00 to $1.50 per hour, particularly during the
busier Thursday through Sunday periods in the most impacted on-street
parking locations. To enhance revenue and promote consistency within
ATTACHMENT 2
13Downtown culver City
COMPREHENSIVE PARKING STUDY – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
37-8096.00
ES-6
the system, this change could be implemented on a seven-day per week
basis.
E. Increase the availability of parking cash keys4 by encouraging their sale to
the public at cashier booths in the garages. We note that the City’s pilot
program to install on-street pay stations that accept credit cards is a
positive step toward added customer convenience.
Long term:
F. Meter all on-street parking spaces within the study area that are currently
enforced through time-limited parking policies, to enhance revenues and
reduce spillover parking in residential neighborhoods.
5. ON-STREET PARKING ENFORCEMENT
Immediate:
A. Engage in specific citation tracking measures of the issuance of citations
to maximize the efficiency of enforcement officers and generate increased
revenue.
Short term:
B. Ensure that parking enforcement officers consistently use an electronic
ticket writer system that allows electronic tire chalking and maintains
electronic records of enforcement activity as described within the report.
Long term:
C. Require Parking Enforcement to work cooperatively with a proposed
Parking Department and Parking Manager to create a comprehensive
parking management strategy for the Downtown.
D. Consider creating an “Ambassador Program” to empower and train
parking employees to provide hospitality, tourism and public safety
services to downtown patrons and businesses in addition to their parking
enforcement duties.
6. REVENUE ENHANCEMENT
Short term:
A. Implement the parking rate increase recommendations contained in the
Public Parking Structure and On-street Parking sections of this report.
|1010| The City offers to the public a parking “Cash Key,” a prepaid plastic key which a City brochure describes as allowing “the user
to purchase parking time on Culver City meters without the use of coins.”
ATTACHMENT 2
14Downtown culver City
COMPREHENSIVE PARKING STUDY – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
37-8096.00
ES-7
B. Implement the rate schedule for residential parking permits and citations in
residential permit areas contained in this section of the report and
aggressively pursue enforcement in these areas.
7. CITY HALL PARKING STRUCTURE
Immediate:
A. Require all City Hall employees to park on the P2 level of City Hall instead
of on P1.
B. Make P1 explicitly available to the public for parking both during the day
and on weekends, including employees of Kirk Douglas Theatres, and
explore the use of the P2 level of City Hall for theatre employees.
Short term:
C. Install signage within the district and at the entrance to the City Hall
Garage that publicizes the availability of public parking on the P1 level.
D. Install Parking Access and Revenue Control equipment (PARCs) at the
entrance of the parking structure that is the same as that used by the
other public structures; manage P1 comprehensively as part of the public
system.
E. Use an attended “pay-on-entry” system to regulate usage of the structure
by visitors should usage of the facility by the public cause unacceptably
high occupancy rates before PARCs equipment is installed.
8. PUBLIC PARKING LOTS
Short term:
A. Use the lot at 9300 Culver Blvd (Parcel B) for convenient and paid public
parking during busy evening and weekend periods until the parcel is
developed. The City should first test demand using an attended, flat fee,
pay-on-entry system.
B. Promote the availability of the Canfield Lot for public parking with better
signage. Explore the market for paid evening parking at the location
during peak periods using an attendant and a flat fee, attended pay-on-
entry rate structure.
C. Determine the level of demand for employee parking at the 9415 Venice
Boulevard lot for low-cost employee parking, given that the lot may serve
some employees for whom parking in other peripheral locations is not a
viable option.
9. POOLED PARKING PROGRAM
Short term:
ATTACHMENT 2
15Downtown culver City
COMPREHENSIVE PARKING STUDY – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
37-8096.00
ES-8
A. Eliminate the current Pooled Parking Program and replace with a
monitored system of parking credits to track allocations of required parking
spaces and recognize the cost and value of the parking resource being
provided to new development.
10. FUTURE DOWNTOWN PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND
Long term:
A. Recognize the current surplus of spaces in the public system, while
sufficient to manage current imbalances in demand, is insufficient to fully
meet the future parking demand that will be generated from the
development projects planned for the area. Except for that development
that has already been planned using public parking facilities, most future,
large-scale development will require its own on-site parking.
11. ADMINISTRATION OF THE PARKING OPERATION
Immediate:
A. Establish a parking operations entity that would manage parking related
issues, both off- and on-street. A Parking Department would, at least
initially, be staffed by one senior level position that has managerial
responsibilities.
B. Locate the Parking Department within the Finance Department, given the
importance of the careful monitoring of parking revenue, in part due to its
use as a “scorekeeper” for tracking trends in the system.
C. Parking enforcement and meter collections positions remain in the Police
Department although frequent and close cooperation with the Parking
Manager is necessary.
Short term:
D. Assign the duties and responsibilities to the parking operator per the
operator agreement as is recommended in Appendix D -Parking Operator
Contract Review, of the report.|1010|
E. Implement the best practices with regard to the maintenance of the
Parking Structures as is recommended in Appendix E - Facility
Maintenance Program of the report. Note that much of this maintenance
could be performed by the parking operator or other contractor.
|1010| This recommendation may be a “long-term” rather than “short-term” recommendation depending on the timing of
any new or revised contract between the RDA and the parking operator.
ATTACHMENT 2
16Municipal Parking Rate Survey
Per Appendix C of Comprehensive Parking Study
Municipalities Parking Authority Meter Rates
Parking Meter
Enforcment Hours
Parking
Structures/Lots Daily
Rate
Variable Time Rate (such as
unique evening rate)
Parking Structure
$/per month
Culver City (current) N/A $1.00 per hr
8 AM - 6 PM Monday -
Saturday
$1.00 per hr/$8.00
max/2 hrs free
2 hr validation for theater
patrons
$60 for 5 day
access, $80 for 7
day access
City of Santa Monica
Contract Operator/Parking
Office
(w/proposal to
increase to $1.50
per hr)
8 AM - 6 PM Monday-
Saturday
$2.00 per hr/$7.00 max
w/2 hrs free $3.00 evening flat rate
$82.50 (proposed to
be raised to
$121.00)
City of Beverly Hills
Parking Operations
Division $1.00 per hr 8 AM - 6 PM
$2-$3.00 per hr/ $10 -
$22.00 max w/1-2 hrs
free typically $5.00 flat rate after 6PM $65.00 - $185.00
City of West Hollywood
City of Beverly Hills
(meters) & Contract
Operator $1 - $4.00 per hr
until 8 PM weekdays and
midnight on weekends $1.00 per hr until 5 PM $6.00 evening flat rate $145.00
City of Pasadena (Old Town) Parking Division $1.25 per hr 8 AM - 12 AM daily
$1.00 to $2.00 per
hr/$5.00 to $6.00 max
/1.5 to 2 hrs free $5.00 evening flat rate $65 - $90.00
City of Inglewood Transportation Division $0.50 per hr. 7 AM - 7 PM daily
$1.50 to $2.00 per
hour/$7.50 all day. Not Applicable $30 - $50.00
City of Hermosa Beach
Contracted Operator &
Community Services Div. $1.00 per hr
10 AM - 10 PM 7-days per
week
$1.00 per hr, $16 daily
maximum
$4.00 peak evening flat rate;
$6.00 flat rate on weekends $50.00
City of Redwood City
Finance Deprtment &
Contract Operator
FREE or $0.25 -
$0.50 per hr
10 AM- 6 PM; some free
all day Saturday; some
free all day Sunday; some
free all weekend; (NO
$0.25 per hr base rate
non-peak; $2.50 - $5.00
per hr. peak (depends
on garage)
4-hours free validation for cinema
patrons; 1-2 hours free with
validation by downtown
businesses $30 - $60
City of San Luis Obispo Parking Services Division
$0.75 to $1.25 per
hr.
9 AM to 6 PM Monday-
Saturday
$0.75 per hr/ $7.50
max w/1 hr free Not Applicable $40
Culver City (Walker Parking
recommends) Parking Department $1.50 per hr
8 AM - 11 PM 7 days
per wk
$1.00 per hr (Cardiff
PS, Watseka PS) $.50
per hr Ince PS
$2.50 max charge w/theater
validation
$70 for 5 day
access at Cardiff
PS, Watseka PS
ATTACHMENT 3
17